SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On October 3, 2022, plaintiff Douglas Enrique Pena Arcia filed this action against defendants Joshua Zachary Justman and Justman Packaging & Display for damages arising from an automobile incident.  

On May 4, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to consolidate this with (1) Jack Lau vs. Joshua Zachary Justman, et al., Case No. 22AHCV01112, and (2) Jairo Alejandro Benitez Linares vs. Joshua Zachary Justman, et al., Case No. 22AHCV01173. Trial is currently set for April 2, 2024. 

Defendants Joshua Zachary Justman and Justman Packaging & Display (“Defendants”) now move to continue the trial date and all related dates to September 24, 2024, or to a date thereafter. 

Plaintiff Jack Lau (“Plaintiff Lau”) opposes the motion, and Defendants filed an objection to Plaintiff Lau’s opposition. 

 

II. Legal Standard 

Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).)  The Court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c).) The Court may look to the following factors in determining whether a trial continuance is warranted: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance of trial due to any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; and (6) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial.  (See generally, CRC Rule 3.1332(d)(1)-(11).)  Additional factors for the Court to consider include: a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (CRC Rule 3.1332(c), (d).) 

 

III. Discussion 

Here, Defendants aver the April 2, 2024 is the original trial date, and trial had not been previously continued. Defendants aver the physical examinations of Plaintiffs Arcia and Linares were noticed for January 24, 2024. However, the examinees required a Spanish interpreter, and the interpreter did not arrive until half an hour later. As a result, Plaintiff Linares walked out of the examination, and her counsel states that Plaintiff Linares will not be examined without a court order. As such, Defendants argue they filed a motion scheduled for May 1, 2024 which was the earliest available date. Additionally, Defendants assert that all parties agreed to participate in mediation after the IMEs are completed, except for Plaintiff Lau. The remaining parties have agreed to mediate with Peter Searle, Esq. of Judicate West, currently set for July 3, 2024.   

In opposition, Plaintiff Lau argues Defendants arranged a mediation without contacting Plaintiff’s Lau’s counsel, and that Defendants coerced Plaintiff Lau to pay an unproportional amount of mediator fees. Plaintiff Lau contends his case can be separated from the others. 

Defendants object to the opposition, contending that they were never actually served the papers, and only became aware of it when reviewing the docket on February 16, 2023, at which point it was too late for Defendants to file a reply. Further, Defendants aver Plaintiff Lau misstates the facts. Defendants argue Plaintiff Lau’s counsel responded affirmatively to the suggestion of mediation, but indicated he would not agree to a paid mediation. Therefore, the other parties interested in sharing costs of mediation had selected a private mediator. Additionally, Plaintiff Lau signed a stipulation consolidating this matter for all purposes, including trial. 

The Court agrees that Plaintiff Lau cannot now contend the unfairness of consolidation when he, through his counsel, signed a stipulation to consolidate the three actions. Further, any issue Plaintiff Lau may have with payment for mediation is outside the scope of this motion to continue trial. Defendants seek a brief trial continuance of five months, and Plaintiff Lau has identified no actual prejudice by a continuance. The Court briefly notes that there is no motion to compel on calendar for May 1, 2024, as provided by Defendants. Nonetheless, in light of the foregoing and in the interests of allowing the parties to attend the July 3, 2024 scheduled mediation, the Court finds good cause to continue the trial date. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to continue trial is GRANTED.   

 

The April 2, 2024 trial date is continued to ______________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31 of the Spring Street Courthouse.  The March 18, 2024 Final Status Conference is continued to _______________ at 10:00 a.m. in Department 31.  All discovery and expert cutoff dates are continued to reflect the new trial date.   

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.